So now, instead of everyone being forced to pay for contraception, everyone will be forced to pay for contraception. As RR said, this is entirely an accounting gimmick.

None of this would be an issue if we didn't rely on our employers for health insurance. This hapless accident of history has been catastrophically cemented in place by the tax code and other aspects of government that have grown up around it.

And what is the specific gimmick concerning taxes you are talking about ?
When you provide health insurance for your workers and you get a tax deduction.
If you don’t provide health Insurance you don’t get a deduction. No Health Insurance deductions mean employers have higher AGI resulting in higher taxes.

The proposed solution is that "insurers would be obliged to offer contraception free of charge." But that is nonsense. The cost must be charged to someone. It just means that insurers aren't allowed to charge the Catholic institutions an amount specifically assigned to pay for contraceptives. Rather, everyone's premiums will be higher, and out of that pool of money the contraceptives will be paid for. The solution is merely to obfuscate who is paying.

So then according to your logic we should eliminate Medicaid as well. With Medicaid, the low income currently get free treatment that is paid for by tax payers. Thus, die quick if you are poor, the Republican Catholic institution way. Whatever happened to taking care of the needy?

Your logic only works if you assume there are overall costs to contraception. But there aren't. The pills cost money, but they save insurance companies from paying for pregnancy, which is vastly more expensive. The way health insurance works is you pay premiums that are not directly attached to specific procedures, and those premiums will not go up because of contraception coverage because they are offset by the savings from fewer pregnancies. So no one pays - the insurance companies are essentially making an investment (birth control) with a high guaranteed rate of return (lower costs for pregnancies).

This issue may indeed "encapsulate everything conservatives hate about Barack Obama" but it is one on which a considerable majority of the American public, including Catholics, is solidly on his side. His solution is no capitulation at all, but ensures that contraception will still be covered. It's particularly important for young women, whose turnout will be critical in the coming election. The bigger the fuss conservatives make, the greater the political advantage Obama accrues. Although they've been completely outmaneuvered, today's radicalized right won't be able to take their lumps, shut up and leave well enough alone. It's going to be an amusing campaign.

The catholic hierarchy, majority white males, have been bullies on this for millinia when the majority of their congregants IGNORE the edict!

The President did the correct thing for Women...It was the goal that ALL be covered! Women will not forget that zealot republicans attempted to use this as a 1st Amendment issue when it had to do with EMPLOYMENT LAW nor will we forget that catholic semi-celibate all male bishops bullied this discrimination against Womens' Rights !

Political destruction against women, LGBT, and immigrants..the motto of the republican party and a part of the catholic dogma!

There's a logical (as well as ethical) jump here. Is buying insurance that could cover contraceptives the same as buying contraceptives? Or the same as using them?
I wonder, too, just how partitioned funds will be. I don't know how the industry works, but if insurance companies simply take all of their earnings and dump them into a big pot, then surely some Catholic money will end up buying somebody else's morning after pill. You could see where this leads: Catholic and religious organizations buying insurance from companies that never insure contraceptives. One wonders if that is bad business or an untapped market.

The position of the Catholic Church is based on medieval "morality".
It is probably too much to hope that this institution will one day join the Western world, it prides itself in being an unchanging bastion of
morality over the millenia. The bishops know full well that most Catholics (at least in the US) use contraceptives and certainly non-Catholics do. So to deny coverage that is available to everybody
not working in a Catholic hospital is simply an attempt to impose their view of morality on a captured population given that health insurance
is provided by the employer and the employee does not really have much of a choice. Anybody who thinks this controversy is not absurd
needs to reflect on the implications of making exceptions for particular health insurance employer provided insurance.

Catholic bishops have had to keep a very low profile for a long time, given the problems with pedophile priests and the several cover ups. Men who rise to the rank of bishop tend to be very ambitious and very smart. I am certain a number of bishops are thrilled to have an opportunity to strike out and demonstrate their (if not most catholics) sense of outrage over forcing contraception on the faithful.

When I was in high school, I was morally opposed to abortion. But eventually my pro-choice friends convinced me not to make a big fuss over it, arguing that the government had no business imposing a moral choice on women.

Now I find that the U.S. government has no problem imposing its "morality" on me. If I want to form a business, I will be forced to pay for what I consider to be the murder of innocent children.

Obama has completely lost my vote and has completely radicalized me. Just last week I was talking about the need for understanding between the left and the right. Screw it. I will vote for Newt f(@#$ng Gingrich before I vote democrat.

They are just arrogant leftist secularists forcing THEIR religion on us, with the blind hypocrisy of true zealots. Next they'll go into mosques and outlaw the veil, because it degrades women. At the end of the day they are just like everyone else -- they believe they are right, and that the world would be better off if everyone thought like them. There is nothing to choose between them and the religious right.

"Medieval" morality, huh? I bet you consider yourself "tolerant" and talk about about how much you hate judgmental people.

In what way is the government imposing its morality? No one is required to have an abortion or to use contraceptives. It is a sign of intolerance to force others to adopt your views by denying them
health insurance coverage. This issue would disappear if the US had universal health insurance which I consider much more "moral" than employer provided insurance, this way everybody gets the same coverage
paid for by taxes. Government taxes are used for many purposes I disagree with, nevertheless I cannot stop paying them. All I can do
is ask my representatives to vote against them and I must live with whatever political compromise is reached.

The whole point of secularism is not to impose religion on anyone - next time please, at the very least, look it up on Wikipedia so that you don't embarrass yourself by demonstrating how ignorant you are.

The whole POINT of secularism is not to impose religion on anyone! That is why it is so infuriating that the government is forcing its secular values on us, telling us that what we believe is "outdated". That the ancient Catholic church needs to move with the times and take opinion polls and read the (@#$* New Yorker.

I know what hypocrite means without needing to look it up on Wikipedia. I am not a hypocrite - I have never tried to impose my religion on anyone. Look up "religion" on Wikipedia - you clearly do not know the difference between a religion and an ethical or moral value!

Look, maybe this, like most issues of intolerance, is based on simple arrogant ignorance. I don't think many of the posters on this forum have any idea what this issue means to Catholics. You just like to dismiss us as crazy because we don't believe in a woman's right to an abortion -- and yes, to us, the morning after pill is an abortion.

Of course taxes are not always used in a way we like. As a Catholic, I oppose the way my tax money is used for war, for torture, for the death penalty. Like everyone else, I pay my taxes and I cast my vote. Those are public funds, I am not morally accountable for their use beyond that. Ironically, I would vote for universal health coverage, if a sensible plan was put forward.

This is a law that dictates MY use of MY money for something I don't believe in. I just graduated, and I'm an ambitious woman. I have plans. Please understand that I *cannot* own a business if this law is in place. This is like telling a Hindu that she can only do business unless she provides meat sandwiches at company dinners.

If I seem intemperate, please forgive me. I have been frothing at the mouth all week. I may regain some composure with time, but for now ....

They did not convince me that it was moral. They convinced me that the government did not have the right to declare it immoral. The fight against abortion, I believed (well, until now) should be carried out through prayer and persuasion.

... really? You're annoyed at me for making a snide, ad hominem comment that asks you to look up a common word on wikipedia? After you did the exact same thing to me? ... over the word "hypocrite"?
I don't even know where to start with this one.

No, I'm not annoyed at your ad hominem. But rather at your earlier comment, "They are just arrogant leftist secularists forcing THEIR religion on us." I suppose you were referring to the Obama administration, but you seem to be tarring all secularists with the same brush, without understanding what secularism is all about. I have no idea whether Obama is a secularist, but I doubt it. By European standards he wears his religion on his sleeve, but then that's part of the job description for being President of the US.

Wait, yes I do. I get it now. *I* don't get to impose my ethical values on you, because my values are religious. YOU get to impose YOUR ethical values on me, because you're secular. I'm so sorry, I forgot that secular morality is fundamentally better. Please forgive me. It was just my ignorance getting the better of me; I can't help it, what with the Catholic thing.

Oh, and I'm fairly angry right now at the Hungarian government trying to impose a religion (Christianity) on a country where the majority of people do not even believe in any god. So, I'm not my usual, relatively calm self - I'm ultra-sensitive to anyone attacking (or appearing to attack) secularism. So I apologise if you weren't attacking it. Indeed, it seems that you agree with the basic principle of secularism.

Sorry, you've lost me there. Who is the "YOU" that you are referring to in your post? I'm not imposing my ethical values on anyone. That is BECAUSE I am a secularist. And a libertarian. I take back my earlier post - you've convinced me that you don't know what secularism is.

Let me spell it out to you - "secular morality" is an oxymoron. Secularism is about NOT imposing ANY morality on other people. You may be confusing secularism with atheism - I encounter this very often when I attempt to debate with religious people.

Call me back when the bishops refuse ommunion to the Bidens Pelosis and Kennedys of the nation .For over 30 years , he Church's has failed to discipline communicants who espouse and enable a great sin . The Church's hierarchy sold out a long time ago

OK, actually you are completely right, and I do honestly apologize. I do not have the right to imply that all secular people think this way. It may not seem like it, but I believe that a secular government is an absolute necessity, partially to prevent this exact kind of interference.

What I do not accept is a secular government like they have in France, where they feel free to forbid Muslim women for wearing the veil in public places. In that case, they are imposing an atheist world view by subverting those women's beliefs. Such secularism is not "religious" in the conventional sense, but it is just as militant as any religion, and far more smug.

However, I know many intelligent secularists who are in no way hypocrites, who actually do understand the concept of freedom of religion and the separation of church and state. To them, and to you, I apologize.

I completely agree that Catholics and Secularists are just as culpable of attempting to force their ideas on others. It is also abundantly clear that in the West that Secularists have been winning for a while.

Moral, legal, ethical: these are just concepts created by groups of people to control others.

Nobody will pay for birth control, everybody will have to pay taxes
for health insurance. According to medical practice birth control is one aspect of health services. Many women take birth control pills to help regulate menstrual cycles, this is purely a health issue. Some people may object providing any health insurance to homosexuals because of religious beliefs, that does not give them right to restrict health insurance coverage even to people who may be part of that cult.

There is no arrogance in requiring health insurance companies to provide birth control services, it is a practice recommended by the medical profession as a health issue, not a contraception issue.
Many women take birth control pills to regulate painful irregular menstrual cycles. In fact, health insurance companies will actually save money by providing this service so your expenses will be higher if they did not do so. Furthermore why would you want your employees to spend more money because you think they should not have sex without procreating? And if you don't believe sex should only be for procreating what is the problem?

If my future employees want to practice contraception, I will not stop them, I won't judge them. If they pay for it themselves, or get coverage through the government or Planned Parenthood, that's none of my business. But it is a problem for me to pay for the morning after abortion pill.

Why I believe what I believe is completely besides the point. If I actually want to abide by the teachings of my "cult," as you so contemptuously put it, that _is_ my business, and none of yours.

So if your religion, or lack of religion, is later deemed backwards by the majority the government can trample your rights as well?

Considering the concept of freedom of religion (or from religion) arose because of countless wars in England one would think that the Economist commenters would be a bit less eager to coerce others in this regard. I believe this is called regressions.

Those who want contraception who work at a Catholic church or organization can either pay the $5 for a box of condoms or go work elsewhere. They have options and thus rights. Obama's plan strips the first amendment rights from the Catholic church. (note: I'm not catholic)

You have a very narrow view of contraception services. It is not condoms that are an issue (besides no insurance company pays for them), it is woman's health. Doctors often prescribe birth control pills to women with difficult menstrual periods. The recommendation for contraceptive services is not something made up by the Obama administration, it is a recommendation from
medical boards.
And besides why should the person who wants them be deprived of this benefit just
because a bishop cannot condone it? If the Catholic Church as an institution feels strongly about it then they should be willing to pay the fine for not providing it. What they are saying instead is
that "We feel so strongly about this that the ones who don't feel the same should pay for it". That is not what I consider a very principled stand. As far as people that have a job move elsewhere you have not been paying attention to the labor market these days. You cannot just quit a job and find another easily, and in the mean time you end up with no insurance at all.

Part of his problem was (and still is for me) is the unprincipled approach he used. First, he went to the Bishops and assured them that their instuttions would not be sullied bw an association with abortion or contraception. Then, afeter he got Obamacare passed, he went back to his liberal supporters and reneged on his promise to the Catholics. Then, when the s--- hit the fan, he was back placating the bishops. Next,.....

What do we learn from all of this about Obama? That he is a clever politician? Too clever, in my mind.

In the first case he talked about abortion: it's the Bishops who changed the meaning of "abortion" to include birth control. And President Obama's "compromise" didn't compromise anything: it actually made birth control *more* available to everyone, just in a way that let the Bishops back down and save face.

He's been pretty consistent all along, despite having to deal with people acting like children (and that may be an insult to children everywhere.)

Conservatives aren't placated by this accounting gimmick. The Catholic Health Association is an independent left-leaning organization. However, an accounting gimmick was enough to get the CHA and placate enough people to support ObamaCare despite the abortion coverage so this might work.

Which proves the point. This whole business is more about stirring up the culture wars than anything else. I believe a large number of states (17 I think) have found a way to provide access to birth control services for employees of religiously affiliated institutions, and the Church has found a way to accept it.

I wish that were true. Unfortunately he has shown over an over that he is willing to accommodate ridiculous demands. I would not blame him for this if he had managed to get some accommodation from their side in return. All he got was the back of their hands.

What has happened to "Freedom of Religion"? Are we advocating situational ethics when the it involves matters of faith? What does this say about our societies view on the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights or Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

The point is that health insurance is damn expensive and is one benefit provided by employers. If employers instead were required to give the money for health insurance to employees and they in turned were required by law to use that money to purchase insurance then the issue would be moot seen for how silly it is.

Sarcasm Alert
I think this could open up a whole new market for health insurance. We could call them “Morality Policies”. The basic premise is why should an employer be required to pay for insurance coverage on conditions caused by immoral behavior? Let’s say an employer feels that the use of illegal drugs, tobacco or alcohol is immoral. If someone is injured in a car accident caused by his/her drug use or drinking, the policy would not cover any subsequent treatment. Many people believe that out of wedlock pregnency is immoral. I am certain a group of well qualified, deeply principled OB/GYN and insurance executives could determine how much pre / post natal care can be attributed to the baby and how to the mother. These policies would not be required to pay for treatment allocated to the fallen woman.

One more advantage. Once immoral behavior is excluded from coverage, insurance costs should go down. The morally upright employer who, heretofore has not offered insurance, may now find that a policy is within his/her reach.

i do find this rather funny. american catholics, compared to evangelicals and other protestants, are a rather liberal bunch who live primarily in states colored a healthy shade of blue. i'd be surprised if a significantly greater percentage than 30% of catholics are against the use of contraception. that being said, it does seem like a bit of an encroachment for obama to meddle in the affairs of private institutions.

Anyway, I base my hope on the findings of the book "The Wisdom of Crowds", by James Surowiecki, the premise of which is -

"...that a diverse collection of independently-deciding individuals is likely to make certain types of decisions and predictions better than individuals or even experts, draws many parallels with statistical sampling..."

"I've read the Bible a few times, and can't recall reading anywhere that unwanted pregnancies are a God-given right." How about "Thou shalt not kill"? The mandate included abortifacients and the morning after pill, as well as IUDs which often are also abortifacient.

The Catholic Hospital Association would be in a stronger position if they only hired members of their church. At least then they could argue that they were not trying to impose their faith's theology on someone else, just on their own congregants. Of course, then they would have to face the fact that a majority of their own faith (albeit not those in charge) believe in contraception -- which would probably be bitter to admit publicly.

The Church does not impose their faith's theology on anyone, including devout Catholics. It is many Catholics' free choice not to obey doctrine, a fact the Church is cognizant of and publicly deplores. In this particular case, both Catholic and non-Catholic employees of organizations of the Church had ample "access" to contraceptives before and after the mandate. The Church is just not willing to pay for it, which in their view constitutes grave sin. You may disagree with that view, but it is legitimate.
By the way, jouris, no one "believes in contraception". I know you can do better than that.

This "stand" or whatever it was supposed to be, far surpasses any other, including arbitrary opposition to the keystone pipeline, and preventing Boeing from building anew factory in SC as the stupidest. The situation reads , "Obama forces Catholics to hand out Birth Control." What was he thinking?

Its the SOS. Obama makes these decisions on the basis of his perception of political expediency. That perception isn't all that good, as this experience tells us, but he has the skill of being quick on his feet.

If the Iranians mined the Hormuz Straigts tomorrow, he would announce the acceleration of the building of the Keystone Pipelins the day after. I twould make no difference to our immediate oil supply, but it would create the right perception.